Home Videos Games Podcastle

Discuss: SUSD Forum: The Great Pendragon Campaign


#1712

Those are very very basic compared to my workmen!
And, thanks to God, those translations are not very literal.


#1713

I take they are very sanitized?

:no_mouth: Wow…


#1714

My wife was quite fond of Fanabla or Mortacci tua


#1715

Those translations seem to ignore stuff like porco = pig, puttana = prostitute, etc…
There are regional varieties in blaphemies here and I’m unfortunately used to hear very complex combinations of animals (usually dogs &pigs), sexual body parts, very odd actions, moments of the mass, saints, God or the Virgin…
It’s really bad sometimes and you must start arguments to make them shut up!


#1716

Regional swearing is universal.

I know Manchester even uses some verbs as nouns.


#1717

I do not understand “Fanabla” but I guess it’s dialect stuff and I’m from another region (Abruzzo, central Adriatic coast).
But “Mortacci Tua” is incredibly famous!
It originally was a very Rome’s /Latium thing as a direct insult to somebody else’s ancestors (a curse against “your bad dead”) but it is nowadays more an exclamation/swearing than an insult!
I guess it spread out of the Rome’s area after WWII with radio and movies (it was quite popular in comedies of the 1960s and 1970s), but it’s only my hypothesis.
Or maybe on the Thyrrenic coast/Western–Central Italy it was originally more diffused, the only thing that I know is that on the Adriatic coast or in the Eastern-Central/Southern Italy (ex- Kingdom of Naples) it was not/it is not used.
Maybe it’s something of the old Papal states!

I say this since you can stil trace dialects variations which trace back to the pre-unification times!
Lazio-Umbria-Marche and some places in Tuscany, for example, reflect dialects somehow linked and which were parts of the Papal States, while anything from Abruzzo southwards is definitively different and more linked with Naples. And the North, is just the bloody north which invaded us 150 years ago!


#1718

I remember we discussing it last year…but do not remember why we did it?

I mean, I do not remember the reasons we had at the time to change it, but nowadays I feel more inclined to use vanilla Pendragon, if we can.

Just with passions: we used uber-passions applying to every skill, and now we are back to normal rules one passion = one skill (am I wrong?).
As I remember that once we used to raise in winter phase any skill with the 1d6+1 formula, and last winter I’ve seen it been applied just to knightly skill, as per normal core rules.

I mean: I’m OK with any house rule which change existing rules, but I tend to think that in the long run, core rules as written by Greg Stafford are betterm unless we really feel to have situations not planned by Stafford.
The case is different for house rules about things which basic Pendragon lacks (e.g. the Horse Breeding rules, or maybe some other combat options which I feel maybe we should add).


#1719

We did it to protect PKs. Remember Bayeux and the beserkers? Without the house rule on uncontrolled attacks I’m pretty sure we all would have been cut down, rather than just Vance.

Uncontrolled attack is a combat move that is written in the rules as ‘at GM’s discretion’ anyway.


#1720

OK.
But at the time we were also powered up by uber-passions applying to all skills.

It’s just that I’m not sure about it.
You get a Free Attack to try to stop it.
Or be Uncontrolled too and transform everything in a normal trading blows rounds.

Morial was killed by a berserker with our house rules, they did not save him.

I mean: Pendragon has no many tactical options, just switiching from basic trade blows to Defensive to Uncontrolled…and basically that’s it.
I’m not sure that the reason “to save us” is really working or it is more limiting our range of feasible tactics to use.


#1721

Actually, this came up first in the first thread on February 6th.

In a duel between Balen and another players knight.

Indeed, I was asked to retcon my actions because uncontrolled attacks were too powerful. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#1722

I know, I know, it was me, my fault!!!
But even then, I played (as far as I remember) not considering too much the house rule (I was also still learning the game), but just thinking that defensinve was neutralizing it …

My issue then was more about the second passion to recover another passion…
But what is done is done.

By the way: if you all like the house rule, let keep it.
I just found it limiting sometimes compared to core KAP rules.


#1723

I’ve been pming Will about how we should take stock of all house rules in this winter phase. The passion rules haven’t changed, we just discussed reverting to vanilla rules. We are still using the +10 to everything sub rule.

Now personally I think an uncontrolled attack wouldn’t work here.

You’re facing away from the wyvern, you can’t see them through the canopy and they are moving at great speed. A wild slashing in these circumstances would have so little chance of landing at the exact moment needed.

I feel only a knight, anticipating and preparing would be able to land a blow.


#1724

No problem.
I was just considering options, I wasn’t sure about it.
Armour makes a difference here, and archers too.

And regarding the house rules…my opinion is to have everything vanill BUT for the things which are not present in the rules (like the horse breeding), but maybe it’s just me.
I frankly feel “uber-passions” here are very tempting to be used since they over-power you in many skills.
But maybe it’s just me.


#1725

Yep. Let’s put everything on the table once this very long year comes to an end.


#1726

Happy Christmas everybody


#1727

And to all of you!


#1728

Buon Natale!
A good Christmas to all of you, my Pendragon friends, and thanks for the so many great hours of gaming we had this year!


#1729

Merry Christmas everyone!

image

image

From myself and @Biographer and these friendly wyverns


#1730

Merry Christmas!

Cheers!

image


#1731

Pass on our best wishes to @Biographer ! Hope to see them here next year!